I got between 237 and 250, depending on which pixel I clicked on/hovered over (averaged at 244); and agree with the 9 in the shadows.
This is sort of my point, he took a very general guideline, and tried to make a hard and fast rule out of it. It doesn't work.

In a multiperson shot, then, whose skin do you use? It is extremely improbable that everyone will have the same tonality to their skin, even if they are in the same family. There will be a variety of tonalities, even in a perfectly exposed portrait. Unless, of course, you like incredibly flat lighting.

In the multi person shot below where the guy is of English descent and the gal is of Mexican descent I got a 240 reading on the brightest highlight on her cheek and a 240 reading on the brightest highlight on his forehead. Is there a difference in tonality of the two skins in this image? Yup. He is lighter and she is darker. Is there a difference in tonality of the skin in real life of these two people? Yup, he is lighter and she is darker.

In the multi person shot below where the guy is of English descent and the gal is of Mexican descent I got a 240 reading on the brightest highlight on her cheek and a 240 reading on the brightest highlight on his forehead. Is there a difference in tonality of the two skins in this image? Yup. He is lighter and she is darker. Is there a difference in tonality of the skin in real life of these two people? Yup, he is lighter and she is darker.

Then you ARE talking about keeping detail in the specular highlights, even though you specifically state that it is in the diffused highlight area. Those are totally different subjects. I still don't fully agree that you can say, "well, 240 is the right number, end of story," as there is often no specularity in an image, so you can't say that if there are no specular highlights (in which case the brightest area of skin would not be 240), then the image is underexposed. It also isn't true that if you have areas of shadow without detail then the image is underexposed. Many of the most powerful images have vast areas of no detail, just pure black. As long as the primary skin tones fall in the correct range, the image is properly exposed.

My lab says that if I want images that will print up beautifully to send them images that have 240 in the "R" reading in the brightest diffused highlight on the face, and with blacks in the 32 range. I send them in this way, I get 'em back looking absolutely beautiful. You can do it anyway you want.

Ben

__________________
In the end, people appreciate frankness more than flattery. Prov 28:23

To me, you're combining the old Densitometry and making an updated usage of the Zone System as well by shifting and keeping the lightness and darkness within an acceptable range that the Lab's printer can handle and therefore getting superior results in the end product. Works for me, now if I can get this to work I'd be as happy as a clam.

To me, you're combining the old Densitometry and making an updated usage of the Zone System as well by shifting and keeping the lightness and darkness within an acceptable range that the Lab's printer can handle and therefore getting superior results in the end product. Works for me, now if I can get this to work I'd be as happy as a clam.

Benji, thank you for the explanation that I can understand.

Mark,

You are welcome, and you are exactly correct in your observation of what I am doing. If I expect people to pay $95.00 for an 8 x 10 I had better be able to deliver an 8 x 10 that looks like it is WORTH $95.00! My lab's method described above does it for me and it can for anyone who wants to try it.

Ben

__________________Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.

__________________
In the end, people appreciate frankness more than flattery. Prov 28:23